The Big Bang theory still remains the prevailing cosmological model explaining the beginning of the Universe. But it can’t answer many questions concerning its early development. Perhaps, any other theory can? Let’s try to find it out.
First of all, let’s have a look at the main statements of the Big Bang theory. Our universe was born after the Big Bang about 13-14 billion years ago. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once. At that time there were no stars, galaxies and even atoms, and the Universe was filled with a very dense, hot and rapidly expanding blob of matter and radiation. Increasing in size, it got cold. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang the temperature fell enough to form atomic nuclei, and after half a million years electrons and nuclei integrated in electrically neutral atoms and the Universe became transparent to the light. Today it allows us to register the light emitted by that fiery bunch. This is what we call cosmic background radiation.
Initially the fire bunch was almost perfectly homogeneous. But in some areas the density was slightly higher than in others. These inhomogeneities were growing up, pulling with their gravity more and more substance from the environment, until they evolved into galaxies.
A lot of observational data speaks in favor of the Big Bang theory, leaving no doubt that this scenario is basically correct. First of all, we see distant galaxies running away from us at very high velocities, indicating that the universe is expanding. Also the Big Bang theory explains the prevalence of light elements such as helium and lithium in the universe. But the most important piece of evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the afterglow of the primary fireball, still allowing to observe and to explore it.
So, we seem to have a very successful theory. Still, it leaves unanswered some intriguing questions concerning the initial state of the universe after the Big Bang. Why was the universe so hot? Why did it begin to grow? Why was it so homogeneous? And finally, what was happening to it before the Big Bang?
All these questions can be answered by the theory of inflation that was proposed by Alan Guth about 30 years ago.
A central role in this theory belongs to a special form of matter called false vacuum. In this theory vacuum is not just a completely empty space but it is a physical object that has energy and pressure and can be in different energy states. We live in a very low-energy vacuum, and for a long time it has been believed that the energy of our vacuum is equal to zero. However, recent observations have shown that it has a bit different from zero energy (it is called dark energy).
Modern theories of elementary particles claim that except for our vacuum there are several other high-energy vacuums, known as “false”. They are characterized by high negative pressure, repulsive gravity and high instability. It usually decomposes very rapidly, turning into a low-energy vacuum.
Thus, Alan Guth assumed that at the beginning of the universe the space was in a state of false vacuum. In this case, its repulsive gravity would lead to a very rapid, accelerating expansion of the Universe. In this type of expansion, called inflation, there is a typical doubling time in which the size of the universe doubles. In cosmological inflation a tiny fraction smaller than atom inflates to a size greater than the observed part of the universe today.
As the false vacuum is unstable, it eventually breaks, causing a fiery bunch, and inflation ends. The collapse of false vacuum in this theory plays the role of the Big Bang. Since then, the Universe evolves in accordance with the statements of the standard Big Bang cosmology.
So, the inflation theory naturally explains the particularities of the initial state of the Universe, which previously seemed so mysterious. The high temperature is due to a high energy of the false vacuum. The expansion happens due to the repulsive gravity, which makes the false vacuum expand, and the fiery bunch continues growing by inertia. The universe is homogeneous because the false vacuum has always strictly equal energy density (except for small irregularities that are associated with quantum fluctuations in the false vacuum).
- Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists (lunaticoutpost.com)
- Seth Shostak: Why Bother Searching for ET? (huffingtonpost.com)
- Alien Message Embedded In Our Genetic Code! (krypticweb.net)
Visit http://science.nasa.gov/ for breaking science news.
An advanced particle detector onboard the International Space Station may have recorded its first whiff of Dark Matter. Researchers are excited about the possibility of finally understanding what this mysterious substance is made of.
12 Apr 2013
- ISS Commander Shows How He Brushes His Teeth In Space [Video] (latinospost.com)
- Twist in dark matter tale hints at shadow Milky Way (physicsforme.wordpress.com)
By Mark Prigg
Nasa has released these stunning images of the Sun which show the biggest solar flare of the year.
The huge eruption on April 11th caused a temporary radio blackout on Earth, officials say.
However, they warn the worst is yet to come – with this year expected to see the sun reach its 11 year solar maximum.
Nasa’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured this image of an M6.5 class flare at 3:16 EDT on April 11, 2013. The huge eruption on April 11th caused a temporary radio blackout on Earth, and is the biggest of the year so far, officials say
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured this image of the flare. This image shows a combination of light in wavelengths of 131 and 171 Angstroms.
WHAT IS A SOLAR FLARE?
Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation.
Harmful radiation from a flare cannot pass through Earth’s atmosphere to physically affect humans on the ground, however — when intense enough — they can disturb the atmosphere in the layer where GPS and communications signals travel.
This disrupts the radio signals for as long as the flare is ongoing, anywhere from minutes to hours.
The solar flare occurred at 3:16 a.m. EDT (0716 GMT) and registered as a M6.5-class sun storm, a relatively mid-level flare on the scale of solar tempests.
It coincided with an eruption of super-hot solar plasma known as a coronal mass ejection.
‘This is the strongest flare seen so far in 2013,” NASA spokeswoman Karen Fox explained in a statement.
‘Increased numbers of flares are quite common at the moment, since the sun’s normal 11-year cycle is ramping up toward solar maximum, which is expected in late 2013.’
Humans have tracked this solar cycle continuously since it was discovered, and it is normal for there to be many flares a day during the sun’s peak activity, Nasa said.
Officials dubbed today’s solar flare as a ‘spring fling’ for the sun, which has been relatively calm as it heads into its peak activity period.
The M6.5 flare on the morning of April 11, 2013, was also associated with an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection (CME), another solar phenomenon that can send billions of tons of solar particles into space and can reach Earth one to three days later.
The joint ESA/NASA Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) captured this series of images of the coronal mass ejection (CME) on the morning of April 11, 2013 over the course of 3:48 EDT to 4:36 EDT. Mars can be seen on the left.
CMEs can affect electronic systems in satellites and on the ground. Experimental NASA research models show that the CME began at 3:36 a.m. EDT on April 11, leaving the sun at over 600 miles per second.
The M-class solar flare was about 10 times weaker than X-class flares, which are the strongest flares the sun can unleash.
M-class solar flares are the weakest solar events that can still trigger space weather effects near Earth, such as communications interruptions or spectacular northern lights displays.
The solar flare triggered a short-lived radio communications blackout on Earth that registered as an R2 event (on a scale of R1 to R5), according to space weather scales.
When aimed directly at Earth, major solar flares and coronal mass ejections can pose a threat to astronauts and satellites in orbit.
They can interfere with GPS navigation and communications satellite signals in space, as well as impair power systems infrastructure on Earth.
SOHO also captured this coronagraphic (a telescopic attachment designed to block out the direct light from a star so that nearby objects can be seen) image of the CME as it moves
- Sun Slings Largest Solar Flare Yet: Coronal Mass Ejection Hurtles to Earth (scienceworldreport.com)
- Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon (planetsave.com)
I am not saying I endorse the following. It’s good information to have in the back drawer in your mind.
You must be at least be aware of this controversial idea.
If you need more go here—>>>http://100777.com/node/1207
Serge Monast (1945 – December 5, 1996) was a Québécois investigative journalist, poet, essayist and conspiracy theorist. He is known to English-speaking readers mainly for Project Blue Beam (NASA) and associated conspiracy tropes. His works on Masonic conspiracy theories and the New World Order also remain popular with French speaking conspiracy theorists and enthusiasts.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Monast was a journalist, poet and essayist. He was an active member of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
In the early 1990s, he started writing on the theme of the New World Order and conspiracies hatched by secret societies, being particularly inspired by the works of William Guy Carr.
He founded the International Free Press Agency (AIPL, l’ Agence Internationale de Presse libre), where he published most of his work on these themes, achieving some prominence with an interview on esotericist and ufologist Richard Glenn’s TV show Ésotérisme Expérimental, in which he repeatedly warned his audience about the dangers of a World Government.
In 1994, he published Project Blue Beam (NASA), in which he detailed his claim that NASA, with the help of the United Nations, was attempting to implement a New Age religion with the Antichrist at its head and start a New World Order, via a technologically simulated Second Coming of Christ. He also gave talks on this topic. Other conspiracy theorists have noted the similarity of Project Blue Beam to the plots of Gene Roddenberry‘s unreleased 1975 Star Trek movie treatment The God Thing and the 1991 Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Devil’s Due.
In 1995, he published his most detailed work, Les Protocoles de Toronto (6.6.6), modeled upon The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, wherein he said a Masonic group called “6.6.6″ had, for twenty years, been gathering the world’s powerful to establish the New World Order and control the minds of individuals.
By 1995 and 1996, Monast said he was being hunted by the police and authorities for involvement in “networks of prohibited information.” He had homeschooled his two children, who were then taken away and made wards of the state in September 1996 so that they would receive a public education. He died of a heart attack in his home in December 1996, at age 51, the day after being arrested and spending a night in jail. His followers claim his death was suspicious, suggesting he was assassinated by “psychotronic weapons” to keep from continuing his investigations, and that the Mel Gibson character in the 1997 film Conspiracy Theory was modeled on him.
Copies of his works still circulate on the Internet, and have influenced such later conspiracy theorists as American evangelical preacher Texe Marrs. Some of his later works have been reissued by French publisher and conspiracy theorist Jacques Delacroix, along with others writing on the themes of Monast’s conspiracy-related work.
Late last night, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory observed a massive “ultraviolet flash” emitted from the sun, which has turned out to be the largest solar radiation storm since 2005. This M9-class coronal mass ejection (CME) is expected to hit earth today at 9 am EST, and could cause widespread communications interference and damage to electrical systems and structures.
This M9-class solar eruption is just teetering below an X-class eruption, which is considered to be the most severe type of solar storm. M9-class solar eruptions have been occurring almost daily throughout the past week in an area of the sun known as sunspot 1402. But as this area slowly rotates towards the direction of earth, the threat of damage and destruction continues to increase.
“There is little doubt that the cloud is heading in the general direction of Earth,” says a Spaceweather.com update. “A preliminary inspection of SOHO / STEREO imagery suggests that the CME will deliver a strong glancing blow to Earth’s magnetic field on Jan. 24 – 25 as it sails mostly north of our planet.”
You can view a captured image of this powerful CME here:
What does all this mean in terms of potential damage to the planet? It is hard to say, since nobody knows for sure exactly where this solar storm will hit, or what the power of it will be. However, the Spaceweather.com announcement warns that certain spacecraft “in geosynchronous, polar and other orbits passing through Earth’s ring current and auroral regions” could sustain damage. Intensified auroral storms are also possible.
This onslaught of charged particles is also a potential threat to aircraft flying across the earth’s poles, which is why such flights are now being rerouted, according to reports. And as far as the general public is concerned, downed satellites, communications interference, and even electrical transmission problems are all a possibility.
The sun is currently in Solar Cycle 24, a period of intensified solar activity that began in 2008. Though it is set to peak in 2013, this cycle is a threat right now as the sun’s rotation puts earth directly in line with sunspot 1402. And as these already borderline-X-class storms coming from sunspot 1402 intensify, so will the threat of widespread disruption and damage.
Sources for this article include:
Adding more fuel to the conspiracies over the moon landings, NASA has allegedly announced that it wishes to prevent any other craft from visiting the sites of the Apollo moon landings to avoid disturbing sites of historical importance, reports thehindu.com
No-fly zones will come into effect on the moon for the very first time by the end of this month! Why, even buffer zones that spacecraft may have to avoid will come into existence. The reason: avoiding any spraying of rocket exhaust or dust onto certain historical sites and artefacts on the moon.
The historical sites are of course the Apollo landing sites and artefacts present on the moon. And the “recommendations” are for preserving and protecting these historical sites. There are currently more than three dozen historical sites that preserve the more than four-decade-old remains.
“Apollo 11 and 17 sites [will] remain off-limits, with ground-travel buffers of 75 metres and 225 metres from each respective lunar lander,” states the July 20 guidelines of NASA. Science journal had obtained the guidelines.
No legal binding
According to Science, by the end of this month NASA is expected to come up with a set of “recommendations” for spacecraft and astronauts visiting the “U.S. government property on the moon.” Of course, these recommendations will not be legally binding as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes it clear that the lunar surface has no owner.
Despite the lack of ownership, NASA is hopeful that other countries will respect the U.S. sentiments. Incidentally, the restriction list contains more than the historical sites. For instance, the list includes studying discarded food and abandoned astronaut faeces.
Study of bacteria
Though these restrictions may appear preposterous, there are clear scientific compulsions to collect and study them. For example, studying the discarded food will reveal the viability of bacteria on the moon and, if present, how they have mutated and survived after years of exposure to solar radiation.
It is worthwhile to remember that all scientific experiments conducted on board during space travel are of a few days duration and pale in comparison with decades of constant exposure to several stressful lunar conditions/environment.
Similarly, there are other scientific compulsions to study the artefacts left behind on the moon. For instance, any metallic objects would reveal how these materials have degraded after prolonged exposure to solar radiation and other peculiar conditions prevailing on the moon.
What prompted the space agency to act was the Google Lunar X prize for those landing a robot that moves 500 metres and sends images from the moon. Precise landing near the Apollo sites would get them more money.
Very recently, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. The paths made when the astronauts explored the lunar surface have been very clearly captured by the images.
According to NASA, at the Apollo 17 site, the tracks laid down by the lunar rover are clearly visible, along with the last foot trails left on the Moon. The images also show where the astronauts placed some of the scientific instruments that provided the first insights into the Moon’s environment and interior.
The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to information and events that have appeared in the news.
The probability that there is intelligent life somewhere other than earth increases as we discover more and more solar systems that seem capable of sustaining life. The thought that there might be extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI) somewhere out there excites us and has led to organized efforts to contact any such beings. We have sent space probes with data about us, and we transmit signals with a structured content (like symbols expressing mathematical formulae) to what we hope will be an intergalactic audience. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence project (SETI) is obviously based on the assumption that the possible benefits of contact with ETI outweigh the possible harms. But do they?
A recent study by researchers at Penn State and NASA provides a useful outline of the various ways that encounters with ETI could be beneficial, neutral or harmful to us. The study faces up to the most chilling possibilities: ETI might “eat us, enslave us, attack us,” inadvertently infect us with horrible diseases or just decide to eliminate us for the greater good of the universe. (Regarding this last point, the report is especially concerned that ETI might be at least metaphorically green and see us a threat to the universe’s ecology.)
The report draws no conclusions about the wisdom of pursuing SETI, though it does urge the need to develop quantitative measures of possible harms and benefits. Its final sentence seems content with the idea that we will “continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future.” Especially after reading the report, I am not so content.
What is likely to happen if we make contact with ETI? Given the size of astronomical distances and assuming the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity, the most likely outcome is not real contact but merely an exchange of messages, perhaps at very long intervals. Little chance of harm there.
But there is still non-zero probability of real contact. Since we have no way of predicting with any certainty the outcome of such contact, it might seem that we have no reason to assume a bad rather than a good result. From this we might conclude that there is no objection to pursuing SETI, if only to satisfy our curiosity.
But we do know this: for the foreseeable future, contact with ETI would have to result from their coming here, which would in all likelihood mean that they far surpassed us technologically. They would be able to enslave us, hunt us as prey, torture us as objects of scientific experiments, or even exterminate us and leave no trace of our civilization. They would, in other words, be able to treat us as we treat animals — or as our technologically more advanced societies have often treated less advanced ones.
This suggests an argument against SETI that is the reverse of Pascal’s famous wager argument for believing in God. Pascal’s idea was that even a small probability of bringing about an enormous good (without risking unacceptable evil) was good reason for acting. This is a reasonable principle: even a small prospect of enormous good can swamp the prospect of more probable but much lesser goods. Pascal’s argument runs into trouble not because of this principle but because of worries about, for example, which God we ought to believe in. (There is also, as William James pointed out, the disconcerting possibility that God might be particularly ill-disposed to people who believe in him through the calculating reasoning of the wager argument.)
The swamping principle also applies to a small possibility of an enormous evil, which can provide a good reason for not acting. This would seem to be the case with ETI. Since there’s at least a small (and perhaps a not so small) probability that they will bring us catastrophic evil, why should we risk such an outcome?
One reason might be that ETI could instead bring us enormous benefits: they might even lead us to a paradise of peace, wisdom and joy. But there is no reason to think that such a paradise is more probable than a hell of slavery or extermination. And enormous gains are not worth the equal risk of horrendous loss. Who would take a bet that promised, at equal odds, either a lifetime of unalloyed happiness or a lifetime of utter misery? Better to stick with the likelihood of a normal human life, mixed with joy and sorrow.
Another possible reason is that ETI might in fact save us from horrors equal to the worst they might inflict on us. If the probability of their saving us were equal to or greater than of their destroying us, then the bet of making contact might well be worth it. Here the most plausible suggestion is that, without intervention from powerful and good ETI, we are likely to destroy ourselves through nuclear war. But there is a failure of imagination in thinking that nuclear annihilation is as bad as the worse that ETI might do to us. They might, for example, give us each thousands of years of excruciatingly painful existence as their slaves. This might not even be due to moral perversity; they might be so beyond us that they were incapable of recognizing us as objects of moral concern.
We cannot know what might happen to us from contact with ETI. But we do know that there may well be unthinkably horrible outcomes that are not likely to be offset by potential benefits. We should not take the SETI bet.
- 17 ways humanity’s first contact with aliens could go down (dvice.com)
- New Study Behind Anti-ET Stories? (stevebeckow.com)
- Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists (guardian.co.uk)
It is a view of the sun like no other. These stunning images show the boiling inner workings of our star in a way no human eye could possibly hope to detect.
The mesmerising pictures, taken by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory Satellite or SDO, show the energy thrown off by the sun in wavelengths invisible to the human eye such as X-rays and ultraviolet light. It has allowed us new understanding of how the star works.
Stunning: These x-ray and ultraviolet images help scientists understand how the sun works
Captured: The $855 million satellite has been producing stunning images soon after its launch in February last year
The clarity of the SDO images means that it will feed back to Nasa on Earth more comprehensive science data on the sun than any other spacecraft. Every day it sends out 1.5 terabytes of data, equal to 500,000 songs on an MP3 player.
- Awesome X2-class solar flare caught by SDO (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
- Something new on the sun: SDO spots a late phase in solar flares (eurekalert.org)
|Discovered by:||Leonid Elenin
0.45-m reflector (H15)
|Discovery date:||December 10, 2010|
|Orbital characteristics A|
|Epoch:||March 24, 2011
|Aphelion distance:||~1034 AU|
|Perihelion distance:||0.48242 AU|
|Semi-major axis:||~517 AU|
|Orbital period:||~11,750 yr|
|Next perihelion:||10 September 2011|
Comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin) is a long-period comet discovered by amateur Russian astronomer Leonid Elenin on December 10, 2010, remotely, using the International Scientific Optical Network’s robotic observatory near Mayhill, New Mexico, U.S.A. At the time of discovery Elenin had an apparent magnitude of 19.5, making it about 150,000 times fainter than the naked eye magnitude of 6.5. The discoverer, Leonid Elenin, estimates that the comet nucleus is 3–4 km in diameter.
In April 2011, the comet was around magnitude 15 (roughly the brightness of Pluto), and the coma (expanding tenuous dust atmosphere) of the comet was estimated to be about 80,000 km in diameter. As of 21 May 2011, the coma has exceeded 100,000 km. Between May 22 and June 4 visual magnitude estimates by the International Visual Observations of Comets (I.V.O.C.) have varied from 13.1 to 13.8. Even at a magnitude of 13.1, the comet is about 440 times fainter than the naked eye magnitude of 6.5.
C/2010 X1 will come to perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) on 10 September 2011 at a distance of 0.4824 AU. On 16 October 2011, the comet will pass within about 0.2338 AU (34,980,000 km; 21,730,000 mi) of the Earth at a relative velocity of 86,000 km/hr. The Minor Planet Center ephemeris shows this relatively bright comet will reach about 6th magnitude near mid-October 2011, but until the activity level of the coma is better known it is still uncertain just how bright this comet will become. Elenin will make its closest apparent pass in the night sky to Comet 45P/Honda–Mrkos–Pajdušáková on the morning of October 8, before moving apparently close to and in front of Mars on October 15. The comet came to opposition at 178° from the Sun on March 14, 2011 and will come to opposition again on November 22, 2011 at 175° from the Sun. The minimum angle between the Sun and comet will occur September 26 (1.9°), and between July 28 and October 10 the comet will be less than 45 degrees from the Sun.
Given the orbital eccentricity of this object, different epochs can generate quite different heliocentric unperturbed two-body best-fit solutions to the aphelion distance (maximum distance) of this object. Near perihelion using an August 2011 epoch, Kazuo Kinoshita shows C/2010 X1 to have a heliocentric orbital period of 600,000 years, but being on a highly eccentric orbit, the comet will be frequently perturbed by the planets as it leaves the inner solar system. For objects at such high eccentricity, the Sun’s barycentric coordinates are more stable than heliocentric coordinates. The orbit of a long-period comet is properly obtained when the osculating orbit is computed at an epoch after leaving the planetary region and is calculated with respect to the center of mass of the solar system. Using JPL Horizons with an observed orbital arc of 179 days, the barycentric orbital elements for epoch 2020-Jan-01 generate a semi-major axis of 517 AU and a period of approximately 11,700 years.
Before entering the planetary region (epoch 1950), Elenin had a calculated barycentric orbital period of ~4.4 million years with an apoapsis (aphelion) distance of about 54,300 AU (0.85 light-years). Elenin was probably in the outer Oort cloud with a loosely bound chaotic orbit that was easily perturbed by passing stars.
- ^ “IAUC 9189: C/2010 X1; P/2010 V1″. IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. 2010-12-17. http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/iauc/09100/09189.html. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
- ^ a b “MPEC 2010-X101: COMET C/2010 X1 (ELENIN)”. IAU Minor Planet Center. 2010-12-12. http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/mpec/K10/K10XA1.html. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
- ^ a b c d e f g h “JPL Close-Approach Data: C/2010 X1 (Elenin)”. 2011-03-25 last obs. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=C/2010+X1;cad=1#cad. Retrieved 2011-03-16.
- ^ a b c d e Horizons output. “Barycentric Osculating Orbital Elements for Comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin)”. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=sb&sstr=C/2010+X1. Retrieved 2011-06-13. (Solution using the Solar System Barycenter and barycentric coordinates. Select Ephemeris Type:Elements and Center:@0) (saved Horizons output file 2011-Jun-13)
- ^ Math: 2.512(19.5 − 6.5) = 158,582
- ^ Elenin, Leonid. “Comet Elenin FAQ | SpaceObs”. http://spaceobs.org/en/asteroids-comets/faq/.
- ^ Elenin, Leonid (2011-04-10). “Comet Elenin continues to increase in size, and another close approach with a large Main belt asteroid”. http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/10/comet-elenin-continues-to-increase-in-size-and-another-close-approach-with-a-large-main-belt-asteroid/. Retrieved 2011-04-13.
- ^ Elenin, Leonid (2011-05-25). “Perhaps the closest approach of comet Elenin to a Main-belt asteroid”. http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/05/25/perhaps-the-closest-approach-of-comet-elenin-to-a-main-belt-asteroid/. Retrieved 2011-05-25.
- ^ J.P.Navarro Pina (6 / Jun / 2011). “International Visual Observations of Comets (I.V.O.C.)”. International Visual Observations of Comets (I.V.O.C.). http://www.comet-observation.com/. Retrieved 2011-06-06.
- ^ Math: 2.512(13.1 − 6.5) = 436
- ^ “Elements and Ephemeris for C/2010 X1 (Elenin)”. Comet Ephemeris Service @ IAU Minor Planet Center. http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/returnprepeph.cgi?d=c&o=CK10X010. Retrieved 2011-03-20. (C/2010 X1)
- ^ “Comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin)”. Remanzacco Observatory in Italy – Comets & Neo. 2011-03-31. http://remanzacco.blogspot.com/2011/03/comet-c2010-x1-elenin.html. Retrieved 2011-04-03.
- ^ Kazuo Kinoshita (2011 Feb. 26 last update). “C/2010 X1 (Elenin)”. Comet Orbit Home Page. http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/cmt/k10x1.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-08.
- ^ Elenin, Leonid (7 March 2011). “Influence of giant planets on the orbit of comet C/2010 X1″. http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/03/07/vliyanie-planet-gigantov-na-orbitu-komety-c2010-x1-elenin/.
- ^ Kaib, Nathan A.; Becker, Andrew C.; Jones, R. Lynne; Puckett, Andrew W.; Bizyaev, Dmitry; Dilday, Benjamin; Frieman, Joshua A.; Oravetz, Daniel J.; Pan, Kaike; Quinn, Thomas; Schneider, Donald P.; Watters, Shannon (2009). “2006 SQ372: A Likely Long-Period Comet from the Inner Oort Cloud”. The Astrophysical Journal 695 (1): 268–275. arXiv:0901.1690. Bibcode 2009ApJ…695..268K. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/268.
- Top US Space Expert Issues Catastrophic Warning On Comet Elenin (theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com)
- Comet Elenin: Preview of a coming attraction (physorg.com)